Updates from the Canadian Farm Enterprise Network, Canadian Farmers
for Justice and the Prairie Centre. Several of the items appearing here
originally appeared in an email list operated by Dwayne Leslie athttp://www.prairielinks.com.

web
posted June 19, 2000

Insisting on a double standard

By Craig Docksteader

Over the next few weeks, the Canadian Wheat Board will be holding a number
of meetings with organic growers of wheat and barley. According to the
CWBs promotional literature, the purpose of the meetings is to "explore
possible marketing options for organic wheat and barley".

So far, the CWB has put four options on the table for organic growers
to consider. All of them consist of either having the CWB sell their product
for them, or allowing growers to exercise their option to do a Producer
Direct Sale, more commonly known as a "buyback". Not surprisingly,
all of the options would give the CWB more control of the organic industry.

Ironically, the CWB appears to be refusing to consider what many organic
producers have clearly stated -- they want less CWB control, not more.
As John Husband, an organic farmer from Wawota, Saskatchewan puts it,
"We dont want to sell to the Wheat Board, we want to sell to
our customers. The Wheat Board is an impediment to us."

This kind of attitude is not uncommon amongst organic producers. The
organic industry was built without the "help" of the CWB and
many feel it is best left that way. Even the CWB recognizes that their
involvement in the industry could slow the development of the industry
by reducing the incentives for grain companies to establish organic elevators.

Nonetheless, the CWB insists that it has no option but to press ahead
with some kind of increased control of the industry. Since organic wheat
and barley already fall under the CWB Act, the question is HOW the sale
of the grains will be administered, not IF. Even an exemption, (which
would allow organic producers to market their product directly without
the costly buyback) is supposedly out of the question because it would
require a change in legislation.

Technically, what the CWB claims is true. All wheat and barley destined
for export or human consumption cannot be exempted from the Act without
an amendment. But practically, a copy of a CWB internal memo shows that
it really doesnt matter. The CWB has complete latitude to provide
growers with the equivalent of an exemption -- a no-cost export license.

These licenses are routinely provided to producers who reside outside
the CWB designated area. They are also made available to growers of Pedigreed
seed. Until recently, however, it was thought that the CWB could not provide
the same no-cost licenses to producers who were inside the designated
area.

But the internal memo (released by the CWB as part of their legal defense
in one of their many court cases) tells a different story. Written on
April 26, 1996, it documents the fact that producers in the Creston/Wynndel
area of B.C. -- then a part of the CWB designated area -- were given the
opportunity to export to the US without the required buyback. CWB employee
Jim Thompson writes that "Margaret [Redmond, CWB General Counsel]
explained the reason we allowed these growers the ability to export to
the USA without a buyback [was] because it was isolated and without reasonable
services afforded other growers in the designated area. In fact had there
not been an [Alberta Wheat Pool] facility there originally it probably
would not have been included in the designated area."

Since Bill C-4 amended the CWB Act, the Creston/Wynndel district is no
longer a part of the CWB designated area. Nonetheless, the significance
of what happened is clear: The CWB not only has the ability to provide
no-cost export licenses to producers who farm within the designated area,
but has done so in the past. Insisting that the same could not be done
for organic producers is nonsense.

web
posted June 12, 2000

Canada and Saudi Arabia: Bucking the trend

By Craig Docksteader

An upcoming Prairie Centre publication, entitled, Wheat Marketing
Around the World, reports on the way wheat is marketed in 35 countries
around the world. Following, is a partial listing of the reports
findings which reveal a clear global trend toward less government control
of wheat marketing. The two exceptions to this trend are Canada and Saudi
Arabia

I recently attended one of the federal government's information sessions
on the new endangered species law, which is currently making its way through
the Parliamentary process. Intended to update stakeholders on the contents
and implications of the legislation, it was with some interest that I
listened to the presentations.

The story wasn't much different than what has been coming out of Ottawa.

The new law, called the Species at Risk Act (SARA) is designed to be
fair and equitable, balancing the needs of endangered species with the
rights of landowners. Participants were assured that every effort will
be made to first protect species at risk through cooperative, voluntary
methods. Only when these fail, will the federal government step in and
regulate the use of private property and possibly levy fines against offenders.

The fines, penalties and mandatory regulation of private land are what
the speaker called the "teeth" of the new law. These would be
necessary in order to ensure compliance and prevent landowners from willfully
and knowingly destroying endangered species.

After listening to the first presentation, there was an opportunity for
those attending to ask questions. I had one.

"Are there any precedents of private landowners willfully destroying
species at risk?" I asked.

No, the speaker was not aware of any.

"Then why is it necessary to include fines, penalties, and regulatory
control of private property instead of taking a voluntary, cooperative
approach?" I continued.

Answer? The Act has to be balanced. You can't have a law with no way
to enforce it.

I wasn't satisfied with the answer, but decided to wait for another opportunity
to press the issue further.

The next speaker talked about stewardship -- the preventative and voluntary
efforts that can be taken to protect endangered species. "Voluntary
stewardship and cooperative programs are the preferred approach to protecting
critical habitat under SARA," the speaker stated. We were assured
that tremendous progress is being made in the recovery of endangered species
through cooperative programs.

When the time came, I was curious to know the answer to my next question.

"Is there any evidence that adequate protection of endangered species
on private land could not be achieved exclusively through voluntary, cooperative
stewardship and recovery programs?" I asked. No, this speaker was
not aware of any.

I continued. "The U.S. experience has clearly demonstrated that
applying punitive measures to private property has a negative impact on
the protection of endangered species. It skews incentives and makes it
undesirable for a property owner to find an endangered species on their
property. If our objective is to protect species at risk, and punitive
measures have proven to be counter productive, why would we include them
in the Act?"

I was reassured that it's unlikely a landowner would ever be charged
under the Act, and the legislation gives the courts room to be lenient
with private landowners.

I could see they weren't getting it. I explained that whether or not
the punitive measures are ever exercised won't matter. Their very existence
will prompt some landowners to ensure that no endangered species is ever
discovered on their land. If the objective is to protect endangered species,
and the track record has clearly shown that on private land, voluntary,
cooperative measures work and punitive measures do not, why would you
go with what doesn't work?

I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer.

But the truth is, there is no justification for taking a punitive approach
to protecting species on private property. The law should be amended to
restrict the application of fines and regulatory controls to Crown land
only, while working cooperatively with landowners. The effectiveness of
this approach could be evaluated when SARA is reviewed in five years time.

In the meantime, you'd have landowners on-side, and endangered species
would be better protected. And isn't that what we're trying to accomplish?

web
posted May 29, 2000

The value of freedom

By Craig Docksteader

Recently, the remains of an unknown soldier were returned to Canada,
to be laid to rest at the National War Memorial in Ottawa. There the remains
will lie inside the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, as a memorial for all
those who gave their lives fighting for Canada.

It is perhaps the very fact that the identity of the soldier is unknown
that gives the memorial such significance. Over the years, 116,000 Canadians
have died in wars, 66,000 of these in World War I, where the unknown soldier
died -- one of 20,000 who were never identified. In paying the ultimate
price for our country, they sacrificed it all in obscurity and anonymity,
often without even the dignity of a burial or the honor of a headstone.
Across the country, the return of the Unknown Soldier has stirred the
desire to ensure that those who fought on our behalf are never forgotten.

Tragically, however, in spite of all our efforts, our remembrance remains
incomplete. For while we rush to preserve the memory of their deaths,
we are quietly abandoning the cause for which they fought. Though we wish
to honor the price they paid, we place a diminishing value on that which
they purchased for us.

It is an irony that has not gone unnoticed by veterans themselves, such
as Norman Baker, a World War II veteran from Saskatchewan. Joining the
navy at the age of seventeen, Norman was plunged into basic training,
where officers began to prepare the new recruits for what lay ahead of
them.

They were lectured about why the world was at war once again, and why
they should be prepared to fight for their country.

Their officers made it clear that they were going to war because something
valuable was at stake -- freedom. It wasnt a theoretical discussion,
it was real. They would need to be prepared to die in order to preserve
their individual civil liberties and fundamental freedoms. If they failed,
then tyranny was just around the corner.

The training impacted Norman. Before the age of twenty, he had settled
the fact that freedom was worth dying for, and that individual freedom
was the foundation of all freedom. Through the experience, he vowed to
never be intimidated into silence or not speak out when someone or something
attempted to deprive him or his fellow citizens of their individual liberties
and fundamental freedoms.

Regrettably, over the next fifty-seven years, Norman would have no shortage
of opportunities to follow through on his commitment. Political party
after political party would rise to power in Canadian government and promote
policies which warred against the very principles he risked his life for.

He would watch as many Canadians unwittingly allowed their government
to whittle away their freedom by gradually introducing excessive levels
of taxation, regulation and legislation. Increasingly, laws would be enacted
which sacrificed individual freedom in the name of the common good. The
judicial system would become distorted, eventually forming many of its
judgments on the basis of collective rights rather than personal responsibility
and individual freedom.

This year Norman celebrates his seventy-fourth birthday. At times he
wonders aloud about the future of a country that will risk the lives of
its young people in war, but then fail to preserve that which they won
in times of peace.

Its a sobering thought that Canada has, at most, only a few short
decades left to share with its World War veterans. If we are prepared
to relinquish so much of what they fought for while they are still with
us, what will happen when they are gone?

Perhaps we still have time to learn that the only thing worse than losing
our freedom, is giving it away.

Craig Docksteader is Coordinator with the Prairie Centre/Centre for
Prairie Agriculture, Inc. "Where Do We Go From Here" is a feature
service of the Prairie Centre.